 to get started? If anybody's logged in or emailed for public forum I see there's a few participants six. Two people emailed to get a link but no one emailed for questions. Mr. Nadel I see that you raise your hand. I will when we get there I just kind of wanted to check in before we start. All right so I call to order March 23rd 2021 Transportation Energy and Utilities Committee. I'll make a motion to adopt the agenda for today. The second from Councillor Stromberg and Councillor Hanson. All those in favor adopt the agenda as published and board docs please say aye. Aye. The second item on the agenda is the minutes from the January 26th 2021 meeting. I'll make a motion to adopt the January 26th 2021 minutes from that meeting. With the second. Second. Second by Councillor Hanson. All those in favor adopting the January 26th 2021 meeting please say aye. Aye. The motion also passes unanimously the third item is public forum and I see that Mr. Nadel I believe you were first in the queue there. Can you hear us? Yes I see there's Wendy. Okay. All right so what would you like to address the panelists as well as the staff and the counselors? I'd like to make a comment about the neighborhood greenway and the planters in the bollards that are kind of used to use the bumpouts on the neighborhood greenway and the bikeway. I know they're designed to be temporary and quick build and you know they they look good for the first six months but they've kind of fallen into disrepair over the past couple years and they look exceedingly bad. You know all the planters have graffiti on them all the bollards are crooked and the paint's peeling from them and since the street cleaners can't get into that area the grime and gunk is kind of accumulated in those areas so they look really neglected and I know that's not really the look that we're going for in town so I just wanted to make a comment about that. I know that they're temporary. It'd be great if we could replace them with something permanent or just maintain them and send some crews up there to clean around them because it's really gunky after all these years and that's my comment. Thank you. Thank you. Noted. Second is Wendy Cove. Are you available to unmute and speak? Yes although this is Gene Burton and this is just a glitch with my with our computer but actually and actually my comments are on the consolidated collection and I would love to have them be able to be taken then. I can do either one but would rather if that is possible. That's fine. Great so I'll pass. That makes sense. Thank you. Thank you Gene. Nice to hear from you. Kai McElphorlai. Okay. Kai McElphorlai I see you unraised your hand so if you would like to be heard at a later point that's fine as well. At this point I don't see any other person or Rick Sharp. You have the floor if you're able to unmute yourself. Hi I would like to talk I'd like to talk about the rideshare program that's later in the agenda should I wait hold my comments to them. That's fine yeah we can do that. Anyone else that since we emailed that you feel wanted to get in the queue? Nope. So we'll close the general public forum and we'll limit public forum a little bit after the two items. We have two people wanting to address each item. All right so I'll go to the agenda. Item number four is Lee Perry the Consolidation Collection Study. Great thank you very much Chair Polino. I will turn it over to Division Director Lee Perry here momentarily. We were pleased to provide you a evaluation of a municipal operated Consolidated Collection Model in in your packet and we will briefly go over the high points. Really want to hear your questions. We were pleased that after going through an extensive evaluation last summer with our consultant GBB for a franchise model Consolidated Collection that you all had received that asked some good questions and asked us to do some more homework. So we made sure to spend the time to develop a budget to look through legal financial issues operational issues and I'm pleased with what we have put together here. Lee will hit the high points and then we really want to hear from the public and hear from you all. Our thought was that we would not be seeking any decision from you all tonight since we provided this information about a day ago and it's a lot to chew on but to seek your guidance at the April meeting for a recommendation to the City Council. So with that I'll turn it over to Division Director Lee Perry. Good afternoon all. Good to see you all again. It's been a while. So yeah I'll hit the high points. You know start off with staff resources. In this budget we have included 14 additional full-time employees nine of them being actual root drivers in addition to the three that we have in recycling two customer service billing staff another fleet technician because we are adding additional vehicles to the fleet to support this division. And you know there's a lot of hours over the past year at the fleet technicians provide for just the recycling fleet. So we figure with the addition we're going to need more help and public enforcement and outreach position to help with you know policies educating the public on the proper way to dispose of your recycling trash and compost. Then we can move to the capital facility and 645 Pine Street we've currently reached our limits of capacity and really no room to expand. So we're going to need a property to house this division a new building to store all of the equipment vehicles staff manager so on and so forth. And then as I spoke before on the fleet we're going to be adding four new trucks to the fleet they are split body trucks those would pick up the compost and trash and one more recycling truck because we are on a seven-year cycle with those and will be due for a new one then to add to our fleet and pick up truck for a manager to respond to you know maybe some contamination issues deliver cards so on and so forth. Then the equipment capital equipment you know we're going to have to put up front you know 13,000 on the high end, 9,700 on the low end for carts for trash and compost and an additional 6,000 carts for recycling because we still have a lot of blue bins currently in use throughout the city that we we need to get out of circulation switching to carts going to be cleaner going to be better for the employees won't have as many injuries and you know and then billing you know we we talked with water resources I mean this was a one of the sticking points to the whole budget is how would we bill for the service and we worked with water resources and their flexible system and proposed to have staff help with the billing of that and so that's pretty much the the high points without getting too deep into the weeds with it I really like to hear any questions that you all have yeah I think maybe Lee just to conclude to talk a little bit about the financial projections you see those in the packet which the cost came out comparable to the franchise operation and the reason that some of our assumptions came in and our projections come in a little higher than the private hauler franchise model one because we have an up front capital cost with a facility because unfortunately 645 Pine Street cannot accommodate this use without displacing some other use there is the setting up of a new billing operation while yes we have a billing team in DPW this would be a separate bill we believe because the complexity both of water wastewater stormwater billing as well as the complexity of of solid waste billing and that labor we did take a conservative approach all unionized positions all for full-time employees and there may be some position reductions that could be achieved as we go further but we really wanted to show you what we felt was a robust fully funded fully staffed operation our recycling crews now are pulling from street maintenance to fill their their teams because we are under-resourced currently which hurts our other operations and at the end we laid out some pros and cons thoughts of each option there are different considerations I think in the end we really pointed to a question of is this a priority for the city to municipally operate the consolidated collection system is this an area where we want to be uniquely qualified and skilled to provide this service we know as a city we're a small city with a lot of expectations of a high level of services and we don't always have the funding or the time or the space to be experts in all areas and if this is indeed a priority where we seek to go to operate such a service then we will need to put that in and balance it with other needs in the city and maybe reduce some priorities maybe eliminate some other activities to give ourselves a bandwidth to succeed in this effort so I think in the end you'll see for the April 2 meeting we're wanting your guidance on one whether we should go ahead with consolidated collection or not towards developing it and two if we do you recommend a franchise model a municipally operated model or potentially three to advance with a franchise model where do we put in a proposal with the private haulers to see where our proposal sugars off in terms of price thanks for the opportunity to comment we're here to answer any questions I feel like this is very good news I'll just make quick comment and I think the answers for me and I think I had to guess the two other counselors is yes and yes and I think that this is really exciting that you know I don't see the cost being prohibitive although there is a lot of money I just think it's such a great opportunity for us to do something that would be unique to Burlington in the area and to control costs control you know waste and down the line provide good jobs and you know give you guys some flexibility with more staff that you know could possibly be used when you know you might have extra resources or need somewhere else so I just think that's that six million I think that that sounds really doable um how is the question obviously um so I think that's more complicated so I'll pass it on to the other counselors counselor handsome yeah no I really appreciate the analysis and the the framing I'm really glad that we took the extra time to dive into this and um yeah I think it is a really exciting opportunity and um you know really worth a deeper look and um yeah based on this initial kind of overview I think it does seem pretty feasible I understand I think what Dr. Spencer was just saying about um this would be a big new undertaking for the city and for the department and so to what extent does that impact the other large undertakings that we are looking to do especially around you know transforming our transportation system in the city and so that's something I'm definitely really sensitive to is are there going to be negative impacts potentially on that work is my only that's my biggest concern but I think there's a lot to be excited about and a lot of opportunity with this and it's I think it's it's funny that um counselor Paulino um we all said last night you know we all said sort of goodbye last night but now you have this huge decision the next the very next night so your work's not over and I'm a little bit hesitant to make a decision on this tonight since we just got the materials yesterday and we had council yesterday so I didn't I didn't get to look at these materials until the day I don't know about the other counselors but um I mean either way I think this is going to be a full council decision and we need some community input on this to understand to director Spencer's point is this a direct is this an undertaking the city wants to take on but the numbers initially do look very promising but I think uh to just to reply quickly on that last point uh council Hanson I don't it's informational for tonight so we don't have we're not actually taking action it's kind of nice actually that they brought it forward with just this part of the study um sounds like in April you're going to bring forth all three proposals it sounds like um you said possibly a fourth model um but I just think if I I guess I would I would like to know if the other counselors like myself would give the department today whether they would prioritize this model over the others I think that is a fair like for for when you do vote on it for your April meeting um like when you present the real packet that will go to the Duke and then the council with the recommendation you know do you want us to prioritize this um if if we actually do favor it um would that be helpful to you I guess that's a question for director Spencer I think any comment you want to provide today that helps us better understand where you're coming from we will be seeking to answer any questions that you raised tonight in advance of the April meeting and ultimately having this body make a recommendation in April that would go to the council as a counselor Hanson noted this really is a full council decision and if you want to consider a municipal operated model I think there will be a fair and bit of additional public engagement that and input that we're going to need to receive from the public because of the very significant upfront capital costs that would need to be financed this would be a significant uh commitment of staff energy from other projects and I think to counselor Hanson's point what's the impact on our other change agent activities to stand up a new enterprise of this magnitude I think that kind of guidance is very helpful as we head to the council and to just clarify counselor Paul you know we're not planning on having an additional report I think the decisions you saw previous meeting the report on a franchise model this is an initial evaluation on a municipal operated model and that's what we understood you to request and I don't think there's any additional work product needed at this time I guess to be blunt let's assume that you know we pass some other infrastructure bond or something you know best case scenario and you know you take a a loan for a year until that happens to start implementing it um it would it would be years I would think a year or so so you can roll this out um I guess my question is to be blunt is this something you feel like if there was the money you can do and you're excited your department your staff is excited to do um could residents be better served outsourcing it you know because the cost per month is pretty small and a lot of people are using the dump a lot and things like that I just think city with the recycling we're so efficient um that I just see a lot of benefits and there's some upfront costs but there's long-term gain there one of the responses I'd say is that given what I know of of the Burlington populace I think that the model that's most likely to be requested is one where opt-outs are allowed we priced both a system where no one could opt out every resident would have to participate and a model where 25 percent of the population could opt out the projections for our costs on the one where people can opt out were substantively higher than what gbb or consultant estimated would be the franchise costs for a 25 percent opt out the franchise model gbb with adjusted tipping fee rates was around 35 dollars a month we were projecting for a municipal model of 41 based on the cost drivers that I had expressed earlier so there is a delta there and I think if you're interested truly in exploring a municipal model we would need to do some further due diligence to see whether you know we this 41 a month could be trimmed or if not if the public is is prepared to to foot that bill it could be billed you know there are a number of billing options that we would need to explore we did explore predominantly the water resources team billing but it could be in property tax if people wanted to evaluate that option or we could talk to be ed another municipal utility so a lot of work still to be done but want to hear your input what are the environmental benefits of opting out and what's the benefit for somebody like what would the alternative be what would they do typically on average what what would the opt out he Lee you want to answer that yeah so they would they would self haul to a drop-off center their compost recycling and trash which as we know currently barlington is only open to compost at this time and you know it doesn't look like they're going to be opening to expand any other waste streams in the near future and that's that would be a quarter of everyone and why is it that why is that a 25 threshold the initial study was based that GBB did off of 15% but just in myself in Chapin's discussions we think you know the city is going to there's going to be a lot more than that 15% opt out so that was based on a survey that our consultant did of burlington residents of how many people had subscription service and how many people did not so we thought it was best to uh overestimate the number of opt outs than to underestimate because when you have fewer people in the system the cost per person cost per customer goes up and so we wanted to show you what we thought was a conservative model okay and then do we have to offer an opt out option like is that I guess it's more of a multi-part question but like is it can we make it so it's better and easier for them to not opt out or not want to opt out it is a policy decision that the council has um on how if if we want to set up such a program how it would be regulated and uh if the council wanted to spread costs uh on all residential customers um one of the benefits would be a lower per customer cost one of the downsides would be customers would not have a choice right some burlington residents seem to like going to the dump yeah I just look at it from like that yeah absolutely I hear that I just look at it from like an emissions point of view with you know just the option's already there and it's already it's so it's just way more efficient for it to be consolidated and for everyone to kind of partake in um you know obviously I don't want to take anyone's choices away but um yeah I just look at it from that point of view all right thanks um I was just interjecting real quick before I get to you councilor Hanson so I apologize I think I did um so I just want to ask a point of clarification to director Spencer I do see that the agenda item has an action on it but then when I read the memo and the posting prior to it at the you know the email that went out I think it goes from porch forum um I guess I I understood today to be more informational for the following um to give us time to kind of flush this out in in that same area from porch forum maybe even counselors reaching out to to people um but so I guess do you want us to with the action item be to give you the okay to continue uh due diligence on municipal on the municipal plan yeah I think your general input is fine we had listed an action item as a potential uh option if you wanted to make some statement but I largely prefer it was there as an as an option in case there was some desire for an action but I given what we have communicated to the public our intent really is that any action on direction to develop some consolidated collection system would be made at a subsequent meeting okay thank you uh councilor Hanson um yeah just to quickly respond to councilor strongberg I think definitely we you know it's within our it's an option to not let people opt out and I think that's kind of the pricing model that they laid out if we did that the zero percent but I guess I'm curious why didn't we do the apples to apples comparison of the 15 percent in order to get that pricing comparison um and how difficult would that be to get that as well I guess uh in our memo uh councilor Hanson we did seek to give you an apples to apples so that we have in the chart a comparison of both a zero percent opt out and a 25 percent opt out under both a municipal and a franchise model if you'd seek a 15 percent opt out we could you know revise our estimates accordingly to try to give you a third data point okay so that the 25 percent opt out for the private private holler costs is not just it's not just taking the 15 percent number from GBB but it's actually adjusted in some way did you confirm that yes it's it's adjusted we uh we I took all their figures and figured out tipping fee cost and and all that and adjusted everything accordingly to the opt out number I mean I I think it would be helpful to understand the city the municipal option at 15 percent but I don't want to I don't I don't know how long that would take and I I don't want to I don't think it's worth a lot of staff time but if it's if the the underlying assumptions and models already built out to make these calculations and if it's as simple as just plug plug and go I think that'd be great if it's a big undertaking I don't think it's worth that um so I don't I don't know I think I I'll put the ball in your court in terms of that and I don't know what the other committee members think but I mean I'm I'm definitely intrigued and interested I think these numbers are really promising and even if it's slightly more which is what this indicates um what we get for it the benefits I think are are large and and having that money go to unionized um city workers rather than a private enterprise and I don't know I mean Kasella the the the CEO of Kasella I think makes over two million dollars a year so I just feel like where is the money going you know people are maybe paying a little more but that's going to these local well paid employees rather than going to a maybe more stratified corporation um I think that's one aspect to for us to think about yeah I agree with all of that that's all I'm gonna say I think so at this point I I'll turn it over to um Gene Bergeron Gene can you hear me I can okay you ready for me I know you were a big proponent of this model so yes and I'm I'm really um pleased Franklin with your comments uh and I'm really um pleased with the initial work that Lee and uh the rest of the DPW folks did um let me just walk through the comments that I've got uh I believe that the chart on page five has switched the cost for the Pine Street option and the Flynn Avenue option uh if you look at the page seven you see that they're flipped but I mean it looks like the Flynn Avenue option is within 13 cents a month of the franchise option that of course is the zero opt out um and so clearly as counselor Hanson and uh Stromberg and you uh Chair Polino said um this is really an economic it makes it economically viable and this is even with a conservative plan uh it shows that we can we even with the conservative plan uh that the city can undertake this public good in a way that's focused on that public good and not private profit and and uh as counselor Hanson just mentioned um he you know the GBB powerpoint doesn't have a 25 percent opt out and I hear Lee says that he's ran the numbers it would be good to compare apples to apples and I don't know why it would be that hard for us to to run our numbers and compare the 15 percent which I think based on the zero opt out will shrink that um that difference that delta as Chapin said uh the memo identifies significant benefits to the public model it creates the union jobs with good benefits and you know I don't think you can underestimate how important it is to strengthen the city's and region's middle class and to do that in every way possible every way that we can and there's been no analysis of the wages and benefits paid to private hauler employees but it seems clear it seems likely to me that they're not paid as fairly um as city workers and they're not protected by a union contract or safeguards that the union provides this is a really important from a big social policy um uh standpoint that I think the city does have a responsibility um to uh to undertake where it can and so it creates a publicly owned affordable it would create a publicly owned affordable efficient public service for an essential social function and it's would allow us to run a program in a way that keeps the profit in the public's hands uh and under public dot democratic control uh I don't think you can underestimate that there are other benefits that are revealed in the staff's memo um I think that unlike the staff's inference I read the memo is showing that it will help pay for the property on Flynn avenue by paying for a third of the cost this is going to be something which would be an enterprise function so you're going to have to pay for things and that's a good thing and so that allows us to uh to facilitate that with a revenue stream uh I counselor uh Polino mentioned the the adding of capacity to DPW by adding staff that can be used in other capacities like the snow plow system when there when they're needed and it sort of flips the the the current model on its head and you know I know that it was written as a negative that this department was going to have to pay for indirect costs but I think actually it helps the overall city health uh city economic health when an enterprise system enterprise department will help pay for the the costs that are being used in the city for things like the HR function and so you know there are that spreads those costs over a broader area it brings in more revenue streams I think this is actually an amazing thing that allows for the democratic and public use and the socializing I'm sorry that's just who I am of the revenues for good I believe that there are some things I don't like in the memo so I just want to get into some of the weeds on that I think that the statement that the haulers could sue the city isn't anything but a throwaway scare tactic there's no analysis of the strength of a suit and that statement would be true under any of the scenarios franchise or city run and in fact the way that it's written admits this so I I don't really think that it actually is is proper to be in there for this particular um question that is before you which is not about franchising but about or making an overall system but is about whether the city should be doing that the memo on page five speculates that private haulers will not need to expand their capital facilities unlike the city but there's no basis for that speculation set out in the memo or elsewhere and even the biggest hauler casella would have a greatly expanded customer base if they were to be bidding just by virtue of having to service an entire area and it also to include both trash and recycling and composting for that bigger area I don't think it's unlikely that they also will have to expand their capital facilities and their staffing and that can adjust their bidding accordingly I'm not sure that GBB has um you know that they did that level of analysis and that's not my recollection of it so I'm not sure that the speculation on page five of this current memo is is right um I am I'm skeptical of the assertion or the premise that this city program is going to absorb a significant amount of the department's innovative capacity um I mean I worked with y'all at DPW and perhaps since the time that I left the department has been hollowed out by austerity but I don't think so and so I think that there is the I think that obviously more work requires more work but you know the the comment on franchising so shows that the time frame that you're you're really thinking about for that is going to be a three to four year period of startup so it is not a significantly long period of time and after that you know you have got a self-sufficient department or you know division that is providing the city with a tremendous capacity to learn whole lots of things you know you talk about the billing you talk about you know there there's engineering and there's other things um that that that is transferable as you're showing with the um with the conversations with water resources on billing for example so uh I think you're selling yourself short maybe there is a fear of taking on another thing um I that's not unreasonable but I don't think that uh uh the the fear is is warranted um and there is no discussion and I hear um some things thrown out but there really hasn't been a serious conversation about what would be taken away and I think that if you're gonna throw that scare out there that there's gotta be some backup to that because that is a significant um assertion so I I mean I don't know why water quality which is a freestanding operation should take it back seat to anything that would happen with consolidated collection and I think that's true of the other things that you listed I have just couple a few more uh comments uh I don't know why a city program it would be different than a franchise program with regard to a private hauler still serving large residential and commercial haulers in the city that statement that I think is on page page is five through seven I can't remember what I think it's it's it's stuck in there somewhere uh I don't know why that is in there without any backup and it seems to me at this point to be just a scare tactic if there's something more to that than it needs to be put into a greater context um the franchise model and in your your thoughts on it accepts that there are gonna there's gonna be a cost for monitoring and enforcement um and believe it or not these are cash and innovation capacity costs that you know I don't know that you all have um considered and they that clearly hasn't been part you know a major part of the the the conversation in terms of the franchise system what you get for uh for to pay for those when you're not getting any income with regard to the um the collection you know that's that that that is gonna be a burden on you and I know that that that means that the franchise model is in a way the cost of the franchise model to the city I think is is lobald and you know I've got some direct experience with how we underestimate these costs at our peril because I advise the department on the enforcement of the solid waste tax for years and you know the comment that the man in the public uh spoke to regarding the planters is um is an example of this I I believe I as the I mean I think I wrote the contract for that uh those are farmed out those are contracted out to private people um at least they were at the very beginning again I've been gone for a couple of years so I'm not exactly sure so you've got to spend resources that you're not getting paid for to make sure that that stuff is taken care of so um that's a consideration uh I you note and so as you're looking forward I don't know what the implication of South Burlington exploring a franchise model would be it's not explored it's not explained um if they go to that then all of those private systems are going to need to be expanded to accommodate that I I suspect that there that will likely lead to greater consolidation and monopolization in the private market I think we would be better served by a public um service on that uh I I guess that let me end with um asking you to to be much clear about what it means to be a top priority for the administration and the council you know uh Chapman said it should be a a priority there's a difference between a top priority that's that's what's stated in the memo and and a priority so that that is something that um needs some clarity I believe solid waste is a public function and essential public good and we are in a good position to administer a program we have the expertise of running a citywide recycling system we run a water resources system that includes a comprehensive and complicated billing system uh the program that's being proposed is being proposed to be self-sufficient and it builds capacity it's it's consciously and intentionally conservative in its um it's in the approach which I think is appropriate um and so I think that those are all really positive and I don't believe that more privatization of public services is in the public interest a city-run program in my mind should be a a priority and the last thing I want to just it's sort of a it's a footnote uh but you know there's this throw I think it's in a way it's a throw away that if you you know you could always make a bid in a franchise system but the fact of the matter is having one foot in and one foot out is is not good you still got to be able to get those um those those capital resources there you still got to have the plant and if you don't do it in a way which is economically viable that really is not a realistic option I don't think I don't think I think it's just thrown in there um maybe as again I'm trying not I I don't want to impugn anybody's motives to say it's a pacifier but I do think it has that function in that regard well I'm sorry I've made your last meeting Franklin uh longer than uh then you might have anticipated but I actually took the time to seriously read the the memo and um I think I've given you one member of the public's informed position and I thank you for the time and hope you uh you move forward vigorously with a public option thank you I will mute myself all right well with that I feel um because it is um my last meeting um that I'll make a motion that says that see if I if I'll get a second no no pressure seriously but I I feel like I should at least try um that the transportation additional members of the count of the public who may be willing wanting to speak yes there is one other person thank you um Kai mckel four lie I had wanted to speak about this item um I see your president are you able to unmute yourself so one question they asked um shape in was about what I don't think we're there okay there you are okay sorry that was more convoluted than normal um thanks for giving the opportunity I just want to preface by saying that I I'd hope to be able to uh look into this more before the meeting occurred but I didn't hear back from a question that I uh sent to ppw more than a week ago requesting the link to tonight's meeting until a quarter after five today and actually didn't see that I even got that email with the link to the meeting um until uh the meeting was actually starting so um I'm a little behind the apollon that but I do have some thoughts and I'll try and be brief um I too um am in favor of a municipal option just uh for the you know obvious reason that um as time has gone on uh there seems to be a move towards privatization um of public assets uh obviously BT being the most obvious one and I just want to uh lend my support to uh reversing that trend um I have concerns were we to go to a consolidated system wherein a private holler would be performing that service I just have serious concerns over uh the fact that in I think it's anybody's uh it's it's obvious that probably castella would win that bid uh do whatever they need to do to win that bid and I have major concerns over their um their increased monopoly statewide and so that would just add to you know where that to happen and were they to win the bid I would be very concerning um I just have issues with their operation but also um issues with any monopoly given that you know cost quickly becomes a factor and I can tell you that I'm a owner I could hide um duplex owner and have been for over 20 years here in Burlington and uh cost for uh the private hauling services that we've always uh enlisted have gone up dramatically just in the last four years um they're up 20 percent um we were using a mom and pop holler seeing green sanitation that and that was um a casualty of a buyout from castella uh further consolidation and as a result of that uh once the sweetheart deal that the that the holler that went out of business was able to negotiate expired cost just went up and up and up and um we were sort of on the hook to have to use castella as a result of that sweetheart sweetheart deal um but luckily just this year their cost became close enough to I should say that other private hollers cost came close enough to castella that I was able to negotiate uh an equal price uh so we ended up going with gothier they um they agreed to match castella's pricing but I don't see any end in sight for just the the cost ratcheting up and up and one way that we've always managed to limit the cost of hauling thereby limiting how much we have to increase rent to cover the cost is by taking advantage of bi-monthly collection and I I just briefly glance through the reports provided by chape and and others and I I don't see any mention in there of any option that currently exists in the private market to reduce costs by going to the less frequent collection so the the numbers that I am using to give you that 20 increase are based on the fact that we um even though I guess we're probably skirting the the the the laws surrounding um landlords and what we're required to do um in order to minimize the cost we and because both ourselves and our tenants basically produce no trash anymore we have on-site composting um we're rigorous with recycling and so there's almost no need for trash pickup so consequently we use the smallest container available which um something that I another question I would have for a municipal service and we don't we use the what is it a 34 gallon um total and that's only picked up twice a month and so the costs have managed we've managed to keep them somewhat reasonable but I noticed looking at the the projected cost um with the with the opt-out that's $100 more per year automatically um compared to what we're currently paying for collection so I would encourage the city to um look at the option of of less frequent pickup for collection and I don't know logistically how that would be managed but if it if you could do that that would help those of us that try to limit this cost passing having the past additional costs on to our tenants um if we could keep that if we get that pricing even lower or certainly keep it at the at the non opt-out monthly prices is about what we're paying currently um that would be great also um we've always opted every as long as it's been an option we've always opted to what the private haulers refer to as backdoor service which is they the crew that shows up actually accesses the uh the backyard in our case we have a backyard collects the toad or wheels it to the to the curb empties it and then leaves it at the curb um empty it's been a premium well back in the day it wasn't a premium service that's just like when you know you pull into the gas station and other people at country gas view it was just normal but his time has gone on that's become a premium service and the costs that I gave you earlier were including that as a service um I would hate to see that go away because that's something we've been um we've enjoyed being able to provide to our tenants so that if we're out of town they don't have to deal with remembering to um to roll the totter to the to the curb and we've found that is a great added value that we can offer um both so were that to go away or at least were that to not be potentially an option that would be concerning um so then the third thing again the different volume containers another way to sort of reduce costs for those of us that that would be paying the bills and finally um on a related matter uh and I'll just throw this in there because I've I've been an opponent of this system ever since it was instituted actually as I was listening to y'all I recall that I was actually one of the volunteers that dropped out to Lubin when the city first initiated the recycling service remember doing North Street as a volunteer but um I've always had a concern with the single sort um or whatever it's called the you know where we throw all the recycling in one one bin and and it involves a conveyor belt and the staff having to separate and the end result being a highly contaminated supply which then reduces the options in the marketplace to get rid of recycling I know when I visit my now my father um in uh southern Vermont in a small town their recycling service has never been single sort and consequently they are able to access um options that single sort recycling systems are not so if there's a way to maybe re-examine that that's obviously a big ask but re-examine that system as part of this um consolidated idea maybe we could find some savings and or increased revenues that could help offset any additional costs um just from a budgetary standpoint so I'll just throw that out there and that concludes my remarks thank you for the opportunity. All right thank you so much for bringing forth those um ideas um and your expertise on that as a landlord and a resident um so the motion I was going to make is just give me a second um I'll make a motion the transportation energy and utilities committee states that it should be a priority for the city to run a consolidated collection enterprise and I'll leave it broad so that that can be defined at a later date whether it's a hybrid model I certainly would support a 15 to 25 percent hopped out model um but I'll just leave it broad and if counselors feel comfortable voting on just telling the administration that we the committee feel that it should be a priority it doesn't mean it has to be this year um but at least it gives a little bit more direction going into your next meeting um where you'll have the other proposals side by side that's my thought I'm I'm supportive of giving direction um yeah I just don't know what a better option would be so I mean I guess I'll second that and we can vote on it all right any further comments on that I'm comfortable with that all right and I think to to direct your Spencer's point it's going to be a bigger conversation but I think yeah I'm comfortable with that for for now and I can you know pushing that conversation forward essentially great all right um all those in favor of that motion please say hi hi hi that motion passed unanimously and I guess thank you everyone for uh the comments on that I know people feel very strongly about this um as we roll it out so I think it's good to start start that um process into April um our next item is e-bikes which we're all really excited to hear about thank you thank you thanks Lee thanks Lee all right well uh from one environmental initiative to another um we wanted to have the opportunity to give uh the Duke an overview of where we're at with uh the implementation of a region-wide uh bike share uh initiative and I have with me Rob Goulding public information manager for city of Burlington also uh Brian Davis is also here from the chinney county regional planning commission as the city is one of many partners uh in developing this regional system I am pleased to say that uh you know we are very close to having uh the first all electric bike share system launched in this community uh which I think will uh be a very different experience in terms of number of bikes the proposal is double the type of bike the e-bike addressing some of the uh hill concerns that public has uh talking about more stations I think this can really be a much different service than than what we've seen today so Rob is here to give you the wavetops from his memo and then he and Brian can answer any question thank you Jaypen uh thank you chair Polino and members of the Duke and uh very special thank you to Brian Davis from the rpc and uh sandy table from Katma who have been invaluable partners to helping us get to as close as we are to potentially launching this system as Jaypen said I do want to just give you some of the wavetops that we hit in the memo for your benefit for the benefit of anybody uh watching at home or watching on zoom and then definitely want to hear feedback and answer questions I think the last time we came to Duke was a little over a year ago in February 2020 to give you at the time what we also hoped was uh an optimistic update that obviously was at the onset of the pandemic which disrupted everything and certainly disrupted the e-bike industry especially here in burlington stepping back for a moment uh e-bikes were highlighted in plan btv they've been highlighted as a priority of the departments in the cities for a while now to expand transportation choice uh as many things we do in the department are are set for we also wanted to make uh this transportation option as affordable as possible we wanted this to have a local connection um currently there's a living employee uh there's a local employee being paid a livable wage by um you know the former company gotcha now bolt uh which which we can discuss in a minute local employee who is being paid livable wage will be paid a livable wage under the new agreement there's an existing network that's already provided for by the same uh vendor provided at no charge to the community and there's a you know a relationship where they'll be contracting with any local companies they need for kind of maintenance and other operational needs so we wanted that local connection built into any kind of vendor we brought to the city um you know we believe that this agreement gets us there so some of those highlight issues or some of those highlight priorities we laid out there are protections for the city's interests built into this contract uh you may recall from February 2020 or from the prior June we first got approval to launch this partnership and and sign on to this contract uh there are protections such as this being a one-year contract with the opportunity to renew there are key performance indicators we've got the contract the vendor pegs to they don't perform we don't renew um there are protections for important stakeholders in the community we want anybody hired by this company to be paid a livable wage we want any needs this company has that they subcontract for to have a local connection we've uh you know heard concerns from local industry and tried to address at least some of those significant concerns in the contract or in kind of the subsection of the contract for Burlington specifically we did step back uh toward the middle or end of 2020 as most of us were regrouping and tried to figure out the new normal in the world let alone the e-bike industry but a step back seeing that gotcha was not performing um and we our partners uh kind of indirectly uh separate from us issued an RFP let's see who else is out there that could provide similar or better services in the future for what our electric um micro mobility needs are we uh we were part we were invited to participate and did participate in and kind of an interview with one of those companies uh met with them it was a productive conversation but it wasn't the same kind of conversation we've had with uh gotcha and now bold and it it you know there was some deterrence in that we we need some of these uh local connections and and agreements that make this uh make this a partnership that i think we we want in Burlington so let's just recognize that the industry is really changing gotcha is now out of business they've been acquired by bolt a much better capitalized much better managed you know from yeah i think a better managed company they've hired some industry executives from the automobile industry for instance they've been operating in a series of domestic markets now foreign markets uh they have had a series of big capital infusions and now acquired uh companies like gotcha to have a more significant fleet and expand a more significant um in a more significant way they've reported we haven't you know investigated their technology they've reported that they kind of own and manage their own technology on the back end that's a significant concern we had with gotcha with a little bit less responsiveness in terms of a more time in a more timely kind of uh in a more timely way in terms of some you know rolling out technology addressing issues with technology all that said we do have to see how these things work in real time so i think director Spencer gave you some of the uh main highlights i just wanted to provide some more to that feedback we think that this is a good model and we'll see if it works in burlington we really do want to hear your feedback see if there's buy-in from you buy-in from the community we are close to getting a deal signed it's the same contract that we brought forward in June 2019 we've worked with city attorney to ensure that there are no significant differences in that contract other than basically at this point the name of the vendor was acquired all of the kind of legal responsibilities of gotcha and um you know with that i think maybe it's worth stopping talking i'll introduce as chape and did brian davis from the regional planning commission who i think can help address any questions that maybe we can't answer and definitely thank you for your time i know it's been about a year since we were able to engage in this yeah i don't really have anything to say other than um it's a bummer that it would have been really nice to have some e-bikes out there during covid um but again that does raise concerns i know that um even i think local motions bike share program uh has had a little bit of a hiccup so not sure how we could have done that safely but um would have been good otherwise to have more e-bikes out i know obviously we all know e-bikes in general have been in short supply during this pandemic so i don't have anything to say it's fully supportive um i actually think the i've always been a proponent the more bikes we can get the more stations the more you know i i own a couple e-bikes but i i can tell you many opportunities that i would have used a program where i could drop one off and pick one up and then walk two blocks for a meeting or something so i hope to see that at some point in burlington um i don't have anything to say other than that councilor hansen or council member um um maybe i'll wait until after we hear from ryan davis if that's okay to can i share my comments after that yeah and i'll say good evening um thank you for letting me join um you know i'm really here to support the city um and answer any questions that y'all have i think rob did a good job of bringing us up to speed on where we are today the memo that they provided in your packet um i think sort of also provide some more of those details on why we're here now so i'm happy to help uh chief and rob answer any questions that you have i do believe we have members of the public who are interested as well to ask questions or provide comments all right councilor schomburg are you okay if i turn over to rick sharp please all right uh rick i know you're waiting to speak on the side yes um so my wife ruth and i own and operate the burlington segways uh and electric bikes as a small local bike shop uh we've been intermittently involved in the community we are opposed to the proposal by this big out of state electric scooter company called bolt mobility to bring 200 credit card activated e-bikes to burlington i have a long time bicycle advocate um but i do not believe that a point-to-point credit card activated bike system works here in burlington without cannibalizing the summer bike e-bike rental business that is a lifeblood of the local bike shops like us the last two years of operations of the pedal bike system by gotcha proves that this system cannot survive without draining thousands of dollars out of the pockets of local bike shops although this was an 18 hub system two-thirds of all the rides were out and back from the one um hub on the waterfront during that period of time gotcha bikes were routinely used not for a point-to-point transportation system but instead for a joy ride on the greenway with many rides ended up all the way out on the causeway i know that personally because my wife and i took three separate rides out to the causeway during the summertime we saw dozens of gotcha bikes out there we were told by the people that promoted this system in the beginning gotcha bikes would not be going out to the causeway he certainly did that's exactly what will happen with these e-bikes as well um so whatever happened to buy local first that's what i'm asking um i know i can't stop this freight train it's going to go forward so i have three suggestions that i would like to put forward i have a detailed critique i hope you take a close look at that before you get into this and i hope that you modify the contract to get at least these three points in first on the hub on the um waterfront which the city has been providing to this out-of-state vendor for years for free has got to end uh it has to be removed um and it should be replaced with a sign that directs visitors to the three or the four local bike shops that are within easy walking distance of that place on the waterfront where that people can actually get helmets instead of riding an e-bike at 20 miles an hour without a helmet second uh these both e-bikes must be geofenced to prevent them from being used on the greenway we would propose a total geofence scene so they can't be used on the greenway at all but at least geofence them so that you can't take them beyond north avid extension or um the bridge across the woodless river so that they do not compete with us in renting e-bikes to go out to the causeway and i got to tell you that you're under the impression that nobody rented e-bikes last summer we rented e-bikes we had people calling us right and left all over the place we hauled them in my truck down to the foot of college street and we rented them there so there's a big demand for e-bikes to go out on the causeway on the third the fee structure needs to be changed we would prefer that the um membership only model be used and eliminate the pay-as-you-go option we have no problem with that if you did that we're done there's no competition then with us for the summer bike rental thing but if you will not do that and you're insisting on the pay-as-you-go bike credit card um routine then at least double the fee after one hour so that it costs 75 cents a minute to use the bike thereafter and makes it more expensive to take one of these bikes out to the causeway then ready to bike from a local bike shop so i hope that you'll read my critique which i think has been passed on to you and consider this carefully on the results of your actions on the local bike shops i spoke with the other local bike shops they don't want to spend the time to get involved in this they're they're to run their businesses you know um but um you'll find if you talk with jpeer you talk with zandy that they are very opposed to what happened over the last two years down on the waterfront that is not a point-to-point system um so i hope you'll listen to us and hopefully change the program if you want to limit it thank you council ranson great thanks so in terms of the pricing um in the previous contract something i thought was really exciting was i thought it was structured in a way that it filled a niche that was really important and also didn't compete as directly with some of the local shops and that was basically the first hour was really affordable so that it would be really attractive for someone to rent a bike and take a one-way trip whether that was for a commute or for whatever it may be um and then it did escalate you know after that first hour so that it was really about displacing trips and which which comes with the climate and environmental benefits and the traffic reduction benefits versus displacing recreation which doesn't have the environmental benefits and also competes with the local shops um so i'm wondering director spencer if i know we talked earlier if you have sort of that side-by-side of the previous contract in terms of the pricing scheme compared to what's before us now uh yes we do and rob are you able to share the screen on the former price yeah i can pull up let me uh at least as a start if it's okay with the chair and with counselor henson who asked i'll pull up what was the prior attachment g uh user fees that gotcha former gotcha had offered and then if i can try to figure out a side-by-side that makes sense for the folks i can pull up the new um attachment g which should be in your packet so you all see the um the attachment g user fees that's of april 2019 yeah this um this is what gotcha had provided to us actually shortly after the contract signing um or sorry after the contract approval at the council so i'm not aware of a graduated pricing model um one thing we did do which i believe we shared in prior updates is uh director spencer sent an email to the gotcha senior team addressing the concerns that we had and that our community shared about um the pricing structure essentially saying that we would seek by the end of that first year if not sooner the introduction of an escalated pricing model and that it was going to be a significant contribution to a potential renewal and or would be the kind of thing that spurred us forward to look at vendors who could provide escalated pricing to deter you know cheap long rides um we've done the same thing both on a call and in writing with bolt to let them know that it's an important feature of you know the system we want to have an escalated pricing model as of now we don't have one introduced either before that that i'm aware of work from okay um yeah that's interesting i i i could have sworn that we had at least language around the escalator by our but either way i guess i guess my big concern is just it was so much more affordable in april you know the previous proposal was much more affordable which is not only an equity issue and you know making these accessible for for low income and folks with limited means but it's also just makes it that much more attractive compared to other options so even people that do have money to spend it makes it that much more attractive than getting a lift or getting an uber or whatever else it may be so paying to park downtown versus oh i can just sip that i'm you know i just feel like from environmental and an equity perspective we were in a better spot last time because it was so much more affordable and can anyone speak to why the price has such so dramatically increased i'll um i'll take a quick i'll touch on that quickly and then certainly happy to hear uh if brian or director spencer want to add any further context i think one thing um that i i you know i think uh counselor henson we we share that critique especially on the equity front but certainly overall we want to strike the right balance here between um not detracting from local industry and kind of promoting just joy rides at the same time we want people we want residents we want local chinden county folks to use these meaningful ways to get around for for their daily trips so i think we all shared a little bit of disappointment to see that could be really you know this a typical 30-minute ride is going to be a decent amount higher under the new bolt plan versus the old dot at the same time i you know i had to wrap my head around the fact that the industry has changed gotcha went out of business people are willing to invest in bold and so there are there are business elements to this that um i've had a grapple with and realizes maybe something that we have to expect they want to make money they want this to be successful we want this to be successful i i thought that a period of a year would allow us to figure out you know is this is this the right system for burlington and is it the right price for burlington and is there any negotiation around that dropping dropping the initial fee but graduating quickly after a certain point you know what what is possible after we have some data to really evaluate i think the real important concern you're also getting at is the equity part of this and so obviously there is an equity component to what bolt is providing which is 50 percent off the their potential their proposed pay-as-you-go plan you know very recent conversation because i i shared that concern we all shared a concern in terms of wanting to make this as affordable as possible folks who have less income means but one of the things that that they said is that that equity is not going to be a deal breaker for them and that they're willing to come back to the table to to get us to a better place on equity now i don't have firm details on what that means so what you see in your packet i don't think is where we have to end up on the equity front i don't i certainly don't think they want it to over promise and i certainly can't over promise what that means but perhaps it gets us at least to something like like a campus plan where you know for 40 bucks a year you're getting quite a bit of ridership here and maybe there's more to do on the pay-as-you-go plan which might be more attractive to most folks anyway i think the other thing that that we realize is not there hasn't been a tremendous amount of use of the equity plan we at least need to do a better job as a city bolt needs to do a better job than gacha did at attracting riders across the income scale to make sure this thing is going to be used and that the equity plan is going to be used so just to wrap up that deal we feel the same way on the equity front we have addressed it very recently with our account manager there and i think that there is clearly room for movement that they they've acknowledged okay well yeah i think i that's really what i would want to see next is just us us pushing them harder on that front and specifically that short rides should be really affordable we want people using these to get around and displacing those short trips and having an affordable way to get around the city that a lot of folks might lack or might not choose um so that would be my biggest piece in terms of yeah the recreational the longer term renting it for an entire day and riding all around recreational i don't have any really concerned there in terms of if that's more on the expensive side i think that's almost a good thing in a way because again these local they're competing with local options but that short term an hour or less trip time you know that that that is a one-way trip for a purpose not recreation most likely and so that's where i think we need that affordability and then increasing the subsidies for low income because even if it's 50 off the pay as you go but the pay as you go is like 22 bucks just for an hour that's still not really cracking into the territory that i think would be useful for folks um who were low income so if there's a subsidy on the membership aspect or if there's a much deeper subsidy on the pay as you go then i think it starts to become meaningful but otherwise i don't see it as really addressing the issue point um council stromber yeah i agree with that in two ways because it's like yeah people are not going to use it if it's unaffordable and if it's too expensive and then the people who might need to use it because they can't afford a car and the expenses that come with that and or or bus ridership or what have you which is like not the right route um also won't be able to afford you know it's just kind of like that double edged thing of like if both of them are yeah it needs to be a lot cheaper i think um so it'd be great to see movement on that front because we accessibility is number one and we want to be a very accessible city in a way of transportation but also who were who were making things easier for um and we don't want this to be like an elite project um you know i understand there's competition in the area but i think the more we promote cycling and and other modes of transportation that demand will grow naturally and i feel like we're doing ourselves a disservice to make it more expensive because yeah that's just i i fully agree with um the comments that councilor hanson just raised thank you great thanks uh from written all councilor hanson and turn it over to uh zandi wheeler who's raised his hand and has been attending the meeting mr wheeler do you like to make a comment and after that we can also take uh mr christinio if mr wheeler's not ready we can hear from mr christinio i'm not sure if he needs to be promoted is that better can you hear me now great um the not having a packet i um i would love to see if if it's possible to see what the proposed rates are um uh that would be helpful uh i'm i'm obviously interested in in in uh the comments that jack and jane have counselors uh schromburg and hanson have made because that's the discussion that we've been having for about we're going on a fourth year um and share the vision and the desire to have a connected low emission community and without escalated pricing we're kidding ourselves and i'm not saying it would be easy to not have a privileged program for getting around but unless there's something that's really done to make the the the bikes available to people not just by price but actually through promoting them to the right groups and i think you know uh brian may have some some information on communities that actually have succeeded at making an extra effort but um the the ride shared data that that rick shared i don't know if it's two thirds or 60 i'm not sure what it is but to have um that data um that's what people want to do we want to have a good afternoon on the waterfront and if we're going to truly make it an option for the baker who has to go to august first at 4 30 in the morning if we're going to do first shift different places where it's not convenient to to do a pedal bike is it really possible and what are you doing to make it possible for them to make that that have it be part of the life and when we look at some of the the actual site data from when you ski and and some other areas we're talking about trips per month that are like one person going every day and you can look at the data itself so what am i concerned about i'm concerned about a low monthly rate pay as you go i'm going to buy the monthly rate and win and the it's not it's it's a recreation so i just challenge the this group to um to press further and i'd love to hear from you brian but i saw in your email to rick this week you said you've asked bolt to consider escalated pricing it doesn't sound like you've made much headway that's my comments for now all right thank you for that um mr kazan and are you ready to um make quick comment on this agenda jp you are unmuted for a second i think you need to unmute again good to go yes okay thanks yeah so i mean um i work at north star i have this more um you know things with rick and with zandy is our basic basic you know thing has always been that most of these bikes 90 of these bikes aren't in people's area where they're commuting from they're right downtown they're already here they've written they've driven here stuff like that um you know you don't really need a full hour to ride around berlington you know to go point to point it's we're pretty small um and with most like as rick said and it might be 60 50 percent most of them being used on the waterfront going straight back and forth that's been our concern is that when we see people who come into the store they're from out of state and they say well how much is your rental um well they walk out and just go grab you see them zoom by without a helmet you know down towards the waterfront um you know again that's where i get more concerned um you know because it's not being used by someone in town you know that's using somebody who's on a vacation wanting to spend some money they don't care if it's 30 40 that's what if that's what the option is that's what it's going to be um and honestly it gets you know it puts a little bit unfair advantage on us on that sense um you know i had a phone call from who got from b-cycle who reached out to me wondering what i knew about um the bike share because they had been reached out by berlington and they expressed some you know some thoughts about the system saying that you know they were concerned about um that so many trips what won the lack of trips but also how many trips were being used only in that view like that one hub um and they didn't see it as being a successful point-to-point system um and i do think jack's kind of right where you know you need to encourage people for point-to-point to do small trips like hey i'm just gonna go to the city market for a second you know and come back and forth and make that a little bit less but not it but not make hey going all the way you know taking it for the whole day which takes a bike out of commission for so many more people um so you know so you know so cheap and affordable you know in that sense so um so that sense i do think jack's correct i you know i think there should be something where it's like hey after you get to a certain point we want to make sure we can synthesize somebody to actually do short trips for how it's supposed to be not long trips where somebody can't go to that rack and the bike's already there you know it's now it's out for the whole day um so that's my thing but again i know um and when i had that conversation with the cycle they did say that you know they didn't think as it is right now it is viable um because of the lack of people using it except again on that waterfront area um and it needed some significant capital and so his concern was you know companies like you know bolt or uh dacha they need to make money you know it's it's very clear and simple you can't you have to have a certain price to stay in business you know whether it's you know whatever it's going to be um you know he said you know i don't know what's going on i've not heard back from them but here's what the things i had talked about you know do you know much about the system um and he said you know it needed more capital from investors in other cities to actually make it a feasible you know feasible thing and it would be an investment year after year um now whether it will work with this new system i don't know but he did say it's going to need a lot of more people using the system to make it work out i would say that's about all i have to say um but again big thing is for my thing is i don't want it to be used as a rental system um you know we employ our people that way um pay them and you know more wages um you know livable wages so does sandy um and so it does take money out of their you know their pockets as well all right thank you for that um i echo as um that as well that you know we should find a higher price point for those longer term rentals um but what are what are the next steps and then i guess you're going to yeah i'm happy to try to bring this to close uh so this was meant as a as an update uh for you all uh as uh mentioned earlier the council approval uh in 2019 does allow us to move forward with this uh current contract which is this general terms that were approved in uh 2019 uh we have really sought to respond to the issues raised tonight uh to the best of our ability this is a contract at no cost to the region will provide a public service is limited to a one-year contract uh and specific performance requirements in here talk about us evaluating their ability to do escalating pricing as a turn as a as a criteria for whether we'll renew the contract in subsequent years so that is already in there uh we uh got their support to remove the waterfront hub that was discussed many times tonight at the bottom of college street not only is it good to demonstrate uh that there's a more of a point-to-point network and less of a recreational ride but we also have the second reality of the waterfront being torn up for much of this year due to passenger rail accommodation so getting to that pod would be difficult we doubled the number of bikes to make this uh more accessible increase the number of hubs uh and we have really worked and made clear to the vendor that if they can't perform in this year demonstrate an escalated pricing and that a majority of trips are not transportation trips then we're going to find something else but uh I think there's a lot right about what has been put together here and uh you know your input is good and I think really reflecting that we're all actually trying to achieve the same goal and uh we will bring forward your your interest in escalated pricing uh in your interest in the transportation orientation as critical keystones for this system going forward all right thank you counselor I can't see you have a quick comment yeah no I just wanted to I was going to say this earlier but yeah I mean I want to I want to back up shape and just in terms of the fact of not losing sight of as much as we're trying to push and I think we need to but this is really exciting and I don't want to lose sight of that I mean I think e-bikes are really a game changer and getting 200 e-bikes into Burlington is is amazing um but um but yeah I think we we need to push them harder on these these fronts and um and make sure that it's having the impact that has and you know we there is this immense benefit and it's no cost to the city for this to come in so that's really important but it is also a benefit to them you know they they are accessing a new market and it's a for-profit you know they're doing it for a reason so it's not they're not just doing it out of the kindness of their hearts and so I think as much as we can really negotiate um on behalf of the public and and that public benefit of you know being accessible and displacing trips otherwise taken by car and providing transportation access for people with limited options all the things that we that we want to do and that we want this to achieve so I appreciate the fact that you know we can evaluate after a year and make changes but I also want to again push that as much as we can get in the initial contract is still really important even if we're saying that we'll have an opportunity a year from now to to do better I'd rather go as strong as we can um from the start and I guess my question is so yeah I I guess I'm still a little unclear on the next step so basically DPW team and the partners are gonna continue to negotiate and then and then move forward or what I guess yeah what should we be expecting from here I think where this stands is that we are less than 30 days from launch if all the pieces fall into place and the bikes have arrived in Burlington as of today we were just notified so we are eager to get this stood up we are at the same time very interested in continuing the equity advocacy that you discussed Councillor Hanson I think that in one that's one area that Gotcha has informed us recently that they're willing excuse me both is willing to bake in before we finally ink the contract and we will certainly be following up on that in the coming days but outside of that the contract in the pricing of what you see is really what's been negotiated and where things stand for launch Brian do you want to add anything else to that um you know I appreciate the city being a partner in this effort um and I appreciate the ongoing conversations with the local shops um I believe as Councillor Paulino stated you know adding more bikes into the system adding more stations into the neighborhoods the fact that they're electric assist I think that really will change the dynamic of the system and how it functions not just in Burlington but also in our neighbors South Burlington new ski where we're also adding more stations and where these bikes will be located no one really wanted to come off of UVM's campus on the hill riding down and ride those bikes back up in the hill I think this will change how the system re self-rebalances in addition to the work that Bo will be doing so I also echo your concerns I think we can push a little bit harder on the equity front the structure that we had in place prior I felt was a little bit better but just lacked some of that attention from gotcha that it needed I think you know to Zandi's point we did ask Bo to consider this escalated pricing that was a recent ask so we haven't heard back on that but I think there's an opportunity to sort of nudge that a little bit and see what's possible from there and so that's what I'll say for now but I'm happy to answer the questions and again appreciate the city's efforts on this all right great with that I'll close that item appreciate everybody's input on that and next item is directors report great good in the hour I will defer on this until next month and just thank you councilor pulling up for all your service thank you I'll just say that my update obviously did we lose you chair pulling up can you hear me yes we can okay maybe it's better with video I'll just say that it's been a total honor to get a little vignette into your department you know you guys are so big you wear so many hats and I always say to people that you don't realize how small you guys actually are and that you do a lot of contract work and so I hope to still tune in on these big issues that we you know started chipping away at and lend whatever kind of commentary I can and I just been it's been just a delight to be part of this committee and I will miss the meat oh no we can't hear you uh councilor Polina still nothing sorry about that can you hear me now yes all right so it's just been great I don't know what point it cut off but it's been great to be a part of this councilor Hanson kind words about TPW we'll pass those on yeah I just want to say you know thank you to you all for all the work that you do behind the scenes I know I don't see like 99% of it so I just want to express my deep appreciation for all that you do to keep things moving smoothly and in a healthy progressive way for our city and I want to really just express further appreciation for councilor Polina this is our last two meeting together and I just I really really enjoyed this committee and you know I've learned a lot here and I've learned a lot from you and really appreciate it working with you and I know I already did my thank you and my goodbye last night but yeah never too many thank you yeah like likewise for me we've done two rounds together frankly on this committee and have super enjoyed doing it and super appreciate not only you but the whole team here and the whole group and I very very much hope to return to this committee and we'll do what I can to try to get back on um for the next term as well um and it wouldn't be right if I didn't throw in a bike lane question at the end as I normally do but I was riding on south when you ski the other day south of main street and I'm wondering where where things are at with that portion of the corridor changes in terms of south of main street because I had thought you know I had thought that it was we were going to remove parking and add a southbound bike lane but that wasn't there and somehow I didn't notice that until recently but yes the reason you didn't notice it is because it has become worn off from winter driving so it was installed last fall there was continuous southbound bike lane through downtown all the way to five corners or shy guy gelato so parking was removed on one side of south when you ski between main and king on that east side and so there are bike lanes in both directions on that block and once we restripe I want to your striping contractor in hopefully in may uh then that bike lane will be restored okay thanks for clarifying I was riding down and I was like am I hallucinating but now you're reminding me that it was the other side that got removed and now yeah it's just worn off so that makes sense and I appreciate it and sorry Franklin did postpone your last meeting with that question no it's all right um I guess with that I'll make a motion to adjourn second all right you kind of cut out but I'll I'll say I got the just I Franklin how do you vote chair polino maybe you could type it that's a raised hand is that an eye all right seeing the raised hand we uh will understand that uh Franklin also uh votes in the positive to adjourn and so at seven seventeen we'll consider the meeting of the transportation energy and utilities committee adjourn thank you thank you thanks everyone